The Polanski case makes me realize how little I really know about plea bargaining, which is surprising considering how often you see them on television. So a few questions for the legal types. Rather than the Polanski case I’ll just use a hypothetical guy (HG).*
HG is accused of murder. He plea bargains to manslaughter, which in his state or for his particular case has a 7-12 years. Questions:
1- What is the most likely way a plea bargain is reached? Does the prosecution usually offer it or does the defense usually seek it or is it usual through negotiations between them?
2- Does he have to actually enter the plea of guilty to manslaughter before it goes before a judge for approval, or is it the other way around- the judge approves it, and then the man pleads guilty?
3- If the plea is entered is the judge bound by the 7-12 years above or can he say “in this particular case I’m sentencing him to 25 years to life?”.
4- Suppose HG agrees to plead manslaughter but the judge says “No”, and the case goes to trial instead. During the trial HG changes his story to say “I wasn’t even there when the murder occurred”. Can the fact that he had already agreed to a manslaughter charge be used against him in court as evidence he’s lying?
Thanks for any info.
J
*Not to be confused with the lamest superhero, Hypotheical Man. “Can he leap tall buildings in a single bound? Let’s suppose that he could…”
Either way. I compare it to buying a car: the guy might offer me a good price up front, or I might have to wheedle him down (maybe by pointing out some flaws or some work it’s going to take on his part), or we might come to a consensus. Ultimately, though the final offer comes from the seller/DA, and the final acceptance or rejection comes from the buyer/defense attorney.
The first. The guy enters the plea, and the judge then accepts or rejects it.
Not in my jurisdiction - that would be a rejection of the plea agreement. The defendant would then be entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. Happened in Con Air, though.
No according to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, and according to most (maybe all) state court rules of evidence that follow it.
"Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:
I should probably clarify this: the final acceptance or rejection comes from the defendant through his or her defense attorney. No attorney can force a defendant to accept a good deal or turn down a bad one.
In my jurisdiction it’s very uncommon - the vast majority of day-to-day plea agreements are accepted. I’ve only ever had one that wasn’t, and it wasn’t officially rejected on the record (two judges made it known to the prosecutor and I in private that we really needed to find another judge to hear the plea). The federal judge I used to clerk for once also once rejected a plea in a high profile case, but again, that was not at all common.
Could his lawyer ethically make that argument knowing that it is untrue? I thought that a lawyer had to be truthful at all times, but simply present his client’s case in the best light.
A lawyer can’t ethically make an argument that he knows is untrue, or allow his client to make an argument that he knows is untrue.
But a lawyer can certainly make a case that the state hasn’t proved that his client was at the murder scene, even if he knows that his client was there.